And let's not forget Elinore ...
Ah ... Elinore.
Posted on 07/20/2004 12:26:58 PM PDT by quidnunc
More Lord of the Rings movies — oh, yesss, preciousss, we wantsss them.
And within the next twenty or thirty years, we'll get them. Children who watched the Lord of the Rings trilogy will take their own children to a complete remake of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It's inevitable.
Most great movies will never be remade. We will never see remakes of The Godfather, or Gone with the Wind, or even Star Wars. But Lord of the Rings is different.
Why? Consider these five reasons.
• The pre-existing fame of the LOTR novels prevents the actors in the LOTR trilogy from dominating the roles they played.
No sane actor would dare to recreate the role of Vito Corleone; the role is bound up too tightly with the performance of Marlon Brando. Similarly, what actress can hope to compete with Vivian Leigh's Scarlett O'Hara? But in the current LOTR trilogy, no actor consumes his role so completely. The finest performance in LOTR (Gollum notwithstanding) may have come from Ian McKellan as Gandalf. Yet, much as I enjoyed his performance, I can think of several actors who could have done as good a job portraying Gandalf: Sean Connery, Brian Blessed, Derek Jacobi, Anthony Hopkins, Michael Caine, Patrick Stewart — the list goes on. The major characters in LOTR are so densely textured in the books — and yet so indelibly etched into the minds of Tolkien's fans, after decades of reading and re-reading the novels — that the performances of the leads in the current trilogy seem like interpretations of the characters, rather than definitions. Moreover, Peter Jackson's direction emphasized plot, rather than characterization, thus allowing room for future actors to place their own imprints on the characters in a way that would be impossible in other remakes.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at techcentralstation.com ...
Movies sucked, people that liked them are idiots.
And let's not forget Elinore ...
Ah ... Elinore.
It's a pity I've run out of bullets....
Does your mommy know you're using the computer?
Now that's some nice animation.
Something of interest
I agree that LOTR like "Christmas Carol" is a dense literary classic that will support reinterpretation time after time.
. . . I kinda liked the Bakshi film too, although it was flawed and incomplete.
Robert Shaw would have been awesome as Bombadil. Too bad. The actor that played the nutjob Irishman in Braveheart would make a decent Bombadil as well. No need to even think of Nathan Lane (*shudder*).
(I should say though I find the debate over what or who Tom is to be fascinating).
Yep. He is a singularity. There is nothing in any of Tolkein's contributory or related works that even hints at what or who Bombadil might be. My pet theory has always been that he was a corporeal embodiment of Iluvatar. Very Druidic, very much in keeping with Tokein's mythological and literary roots.
I knew this proposal of having "pity" and "staying of hands" wouldn't work.
The live action rotoscoping just cant fit in a box merely titled "flawed". ;~D
Bilbo never had pity on the orcs...
I agree. The whole thing with Tom is silly.
I'd respond, but I'm an idiot, so I can't.
Steven?! Never thought of him. Could work!
Yep. He is a singularity. There is nothing in any of Tolkein's contributory or related works that even hints at what or who Bombadil might be. My pet theory has always been that he was a corporeal embodiment of Iluvatar. Very Druidic, very much in keeping with Tokein's mythological and literary roots.
I agree. Mainly by firmly concluding what he is not, I think Bombadil is none other than Iluvatar himself.
Couple of my favorites:
It'll be another Age in Middle Earth before LOTR is remade
bttfl
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.